From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23003 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2009 18:38:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 22988 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Sep 2009 18:38:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_53,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:38:36 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n84IcPHl020940; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:38:26 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n84IcPAG029001; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:38:25 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n84IcO5a016723; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:38:24 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id BE809378242; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:38:23 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Nathan Froyd Cc: Doug Evans , Pedro Alves , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: store.exp failure on i686-linux with newer gcc's References: <200909032303.56901.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090903234357.GR29075@codesourcery.com> <20090904174903.GV29075@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:38:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090904174903.GV29075@codesourcery.com> (Nathan Froyd's message of "Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:49:03 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00082.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Nathan" == Nathan Froyd writes: >> So, perhaps it is better to continue to copy in the bits eagerly >> instead of postponing them to read_pieced_value. Nathan> I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. At least for values where some Nathan> of the pieces live in registers, if you don't have the frame for the Nathan> value, you can't write to the register, correct? Oh, never mind, I was confused. I see now that read_pieced_value will only be called to fill in a lazy value. So, you are correct, this can't happen for values on the history. This patch is ok. Tom